JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NOT BARRED:SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court has held in the case of RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION & ANR. vs. BAL MUKUND BAIRWA decided on 12/02/2009 that the jurisdiction of a civil court in an industrial dispute is not barred in case the dispute relates to violation of fundamental rights of a workman or the violation of general law of contract is involved.

The three-judge bench, comprising Justices S B Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma and Asok Kumar Ganguly, in their judgment noted, The purpose of principles of natural justice is prevention of miscarriage of justice and hence the observance thereof is a pragmatic requirement of fair play in action.

The jurisdiction of a civil court is governed by Section 9 of the of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:
 "9 - Courts to try all civil suits unless barred:-The Courts shall (subject to the
provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature
excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred."

The jurisdiction of the Civil Court in terms of the aforementioned is a plenary one. The provision relating to bar to entertain a must therefore be laid down by a statute either expressly or by implication. An employee charged with grave acts of must be held to be entitled to a fair hearing in the proceeding. The common law principles of natural justice also be complied with. Rules laid down in the statutory rules should be followed.

Section 9 of the Code is in enforcement of the fundamental of law laid down in the maxim Ubi jus Ibi remedium. A thus, having a grievance of a civil nature has a right to institute a suit in a competent civil court unless its cognizance is either or impliedly barred by any statute. Ex facie, in terms of section of the Code, civil courts can try all suits, unless bared by either expressly or by necessary implication.

The civil court, furthermore, being a court of plenary jurisdiction the jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction upon considering the made in the plaint but that would not mean that the plaintiff
circumvent the provisions of law in order to invest jurisdiction on the court although it otherwise may not possess. For the said purpose, court in given cases would be entitled to decide the question of its jurisdiction upon arriving at a finding in regard to the existence of jurisdictional fact. It is also well settled that there is a presumption a civil court will have jurisdiction and the ouster of civil court's is not to be readily inferred. A person taking a plea contra establish the same. Even in a case where jurisdiction of a civil court sought to be barred under a statute, the civil court can exercise its jurisdiction in respect of some matters particularly when the statutory
or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction.

In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, it would not be correct to contend that only because the employee concerned is also a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the 1947 Act or the conditions of the service are otherwise governed by the Standing Order certified under the 1946 Act ipso facto the civil court will have no jurisdiction.

The apex court also noted, �if the infringement of Standing Order or other provisions of the industrial disputes act are alleged, the civil courts jurisdiction may be held to be barred but if the suit is based on the violation of principles of common law or constitutional provisions or on other grounds, the civil courts jurisdiction may not be held to be barred.

The objection to the maintainability of the civil suit filed by Balmukund Birwa and others was raised by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The two judge bench of the Supreme Court vide order dated November 22, 2007 had referred the case to three-judge bench for deciding the issue whether the civil court is completely debarred for entertaining a suit involving a dispute between the employer and the workman.

The apex court also held that it is a settled law that if a court decides a mater without jurisdiction, the decision, or the decree passed by such court would be a nullity and the jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a court either by the court order or through the mutual consent of the parties.